Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />D~'I'..".'i.... Ii' t:T <br />:~(A~- . <br /> <br />ARDEN HlLLS CITY COUNCIL - August 15,2000 <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />Mr. Robert Dcw, Project Manager with Rochon, clarified his intentions in the July 21st letter, <br />stating that at thc timc of writing, the dates specified were used as a "hopeful milestone," and <br />were used, as directed by their compallY's legal counsel, to protect their firm from any fallout <br />should the City invoke suspension of thc contract, and to protect from ramifications with their <br />subcontractors. Mr. Dew stated that, should the City award the full contract, with conditions for <br />partial work, - there was limited liability to Rochon, or their subcontractors, as all contracts with <br />subcontractors would contain thc same verbiage in a flow-through clause. Mr. Dew assurcd the <br />City that, according to bid proccdure and the way the contract documents arc writtcn, the City <br />still maintained control in the amount of work the contractor would be authorized to proceed <br />with. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst askcd for City Attomey Filla's opinion on public bidding laws and the City's <br />responsibility regarding awarding of the full contract, and the inability to modify thc contract <br />without a rebid process. <br /> <br />City Attorney Filla clarified that the City could not issue a partial contract. Mr. Filla reviewcd <br />several of the contract's terms; specifically the ramifications if the City were not able to acquire <br />titlc to the property after part of contract is partially started and that the contract stated that either <br />party can terminate contract for cause. Mr. Filla statcd that the contract speaks in terms of <br />damages to partics; with arbitration binding after contract issue; and that the City would only be <br />liable for the work done to-datc, and would not need to proceed further. Mr. Filla stated that <br />there was limited liability to thc City, and if the contract werc terminated, it would need to be <br />deteDnined what loss/profit thcrc would be, and the contractor would need to be reimbursed for <br />costs to-date. Mr. Filla referenced the July 21, 2000 lcttcr from Rochon Corporation, addressing <br />thcir company's exposure and the City's risk to approximately $330,000. Mr. Filla stated that <br />thc City's options were either to award the contract before thc contract award expiration, or rebid <br />thc project once Fee Title to the property is obtained. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson concurred with Mr. Filla's comments, stating the small risk to the City <br />was not a great concern, as there was minimal risk that the propcrty conveyance would not <br />happcn. Councilmember Larson emphasized that the legislation had officially authorized <br />transfcr of the property. Councilmember Larson stated that hc fully supported award of the <br />contract, that it was time for the City to take the step, that it was a great design, a symbol of thc <br />business of government, and a facility that the citizens and staff could be proud of. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst again addressed the minimal risk to the City, stating that the City's environmcntal <br />consultant had held up the proccss due to discussions with the Mil11lesota Pollution Control <br />Agency (MPCA); and that the DoA was making every attcmpt to process the paperwork in a <br />timely way. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski statcd that she continued to havc rcservations without the actual Fee <br />Title, but concurrcd that, at this point, there was minimal risk to the City and she was willing to <br />